[ietf-dkim] Jim's issues - one more try

[Michael Thomas]

Stephen --

This list of yes/no's is not helpful is it quite possible to permute
these independent variables and arrive with something that cannot
work. What we *really* *really* need is an *exact* proposal that
claims to solve this problem so that we can evaluate the alternatives
against the Requirements, as well as their other merits. Design by
hum here is doomed to fail.

My suggestion: require those *fleshed out* proposals to be submitted as
ID's so that we can have time to read them, get clarification and
consider the tradoffs. Yes, an ID not just one-off wg mailing list
handwaving messages.

		Mike

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Let's try get back to Jim's issues. What we need to do is help
> get ssp-00 out so that we have an I-D as a basis for discussion.
> 
> What I'd like to do is get a sense of what we'd like to see
> in draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00, in terms of the options that Jim
> (as editor) has chosen. (So please don't start with your
> favourite alternative approach, at least not in this thread.)
> 
> At this stage its perfectly fine to want to see how something
> pans out, and ask for it to be included now, but later ask for it
> to be changed/removed - this isn't WGLC, we're just helping the
> authors decide what to include in the -00 version.
> 
> I think that Jim is planning to edit -00 in the coming days
> so if you say nothing, he'll just pick what he wants to include.
> If you say too much, he'll also just pick what he wants to
> include. If its inconclusive, he'll also just pick what he
> wants to include.
> 
> To that end, please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's as
> described below (the description of the issues is from Jim's
> original mail [1]):
> 
> (1) Use of XPTR records for SSP.  The idea here is to create a more 
> general policy mechanism that can be used by WS-* and such.  There were 
> about 20 messages discussing this from 5 people.  I'm not reading a 
> clear consensus on this.
> 
>    Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00
>    Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00
> 
> (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in 
> discussion, mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with 
> anything else."  Again, no clear consensus.
> 
>    Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies (with or
>                  without something else)
>    Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP
> 
> (3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication.  27 messages in discussion 
> from 15 people.  Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of 
> associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had already discussed 
> and rejected.  I have also been trying to get an opinion from DNSOP on 
> the idea of a one-level upward search (which I think solves 90% of the 
> problem), but haven't gotten any response.
> 
>    Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding SSP
>                  statements
>    Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP
>                  statemetns
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> [1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q2/007537.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html